Left party make big gains in German elections

Rather enthused with the success of the Left party in the recent German state elections. Conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel will be feeling less confident about the upcoming federal election in four weeks time, after some significant defeats in two of the three state ballots over the weekend.

The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) has lost its majority (31.2%) in the eastern state of Thrirrua. The Left party received 27.4% of the vote beating the SPD into third place on 18.5%. If the Left and the SPD are able to form a coalition there is a chance the Left's Bodo Ramelow will become the party's first ever Premier of a state.

In the West German state of the Saarland, home to Left party co-leader Oscar Lafontine, the Left got 21.3% of the vote, a big improvement on their 2004 result of 2.4%. With 24.5% for the SPD and 5.9% for the Greens, there is the potential to chuck the CDU out of another state.

The CDU did better in Saxony (40.2%) and will probably govern with the FDP(10%). In this state the Left (20.6%) got nearly twice the vote of the SPD (10.4%).

Germany is currently governed at the federal level by a grand coalition of the largest centre right party, the CDU/CSU and the historically centre-left SPD. In the upcoming federal election Merkel hopes to gain the numbers to spurn the SPD in favor of the free market FDP.

The Left party was formed in 2007 as a coalition between a breakaway group from the SPD, WASG, largely based in Western Germany, and the Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) from the East. WASG included many trade unionists, and a former leader of the SPD, Oscar Lafontane, who is now co-leader of the Left. Its economic policy is not that much more radical than the policies of New Zealand's first Labour Government when it was elected in 1935. Central to the economic policy of the German Left party is: "a Keynesian use of state intervention to balance market forces. In the current election program, this includes socializing the entire banking system, outlawing non-transparent financial products, hedge funds, and venture capitalism, and restricting currency markets."

In many ways the low vote for the SPD in Sunday's elections is a continuation of the loss of support that occured under SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's administration, where he pushed the SPD towards more neoliberal economic policies and cut back the welfare state. Unfortunately, the current SPD leader Frank-Walter Steinmeir is regarded with suspicion by many on the left, given he was an architect of Schroder's right wing welfare and labour reforms.

The SPD has continued to refuse to form a federal coalition that involves the Left party, on the grounds that the PDS was once the old East German Communist Party. In the last federal election in 2005, a majority of Germans voted for a centre-left government, yet they got a centre-right Government instead because the SPD chose to form a government with the conservatives rather than deal with the left. Now the SPD risks loosing its brand from being in bed with the conservatives.

"On the federal level it's very clear, there will not be cooperation with the Left," said SPD head Franz Muentering after preliminary election results from Sunday announced.

Of course a better explanation for the SPD sniping, is that like other former social democratic parties that have embraced key principles of neo-liberalism, it just hates having competition to its left. The attitute of the German Greens towards the left has also been hostile, despite the Left highlighting the common policies of the two parties.

The SDP may fear the reaction of the CDU to a centre-left-left coalition, as the CDU runs hysterical scare campaigns against the prospect of a so called red-red coalition, highlighting the 'communist past' of the PDS and the Left party. I find it quite bizarre that large sections of the German media have bought into this neo-McCarthist nonsense and refer to the left as 'toxic' and the 'political pariah' of German politics.

It is time that someone called the CDU's bluff - most importantly because the CDU can't claim to have a perfect history either. One of the CDU precursor parties, the German National People's Party formed a coalition with the Nazis in 1931. As part of the short lived Government of National Concentration, the party supported Adolf Hitler as Chancellor and the Enabling Act which was the key step towards establishing Hitler's dictatorship. Another CDU forerunner, the Centre Party, more reluctantly supported the Enabling Act. To cap it all off, in December 1966 the CDU made a former Nazi the Chancellor of Germany. Chancellor Kurt Georg Kiesinger was a former card carrying Nazi and worked in radio propaganda section of the Nazi Foreign Ministry. I don't wish to make strong comparisons here, only to demonstrate that perhaps those in glass houses should not be so ready to throw stones.

There must become a point where all the huffing and puffing attempting to associate the Left with the PDS communist past simply becomes stale and irrelevant. Given the passage of 20 years, it is close to the point where the political generation with that past has passed the torch to new representatives. Even those who were involved with the Socialist Unity Party in East Germany, such as Lothar Binksy, were from the younger generation who supported Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika. Binsky is now part of the moderate social democrat faction of the Left, and a co-leader of the party.

The fact that the SPD and the Left have been in coalition government together in Berlin since 2001 ought to cut the wind from the windbags.

For the record I greatly admire what the SPD managed to achieve in the years after World War I, where they created a welfare state well ahead of its time, despite the crippling economic burdens of the Treaty of Versillies. It also must be said the SPD were intollerant of their left even then. But the SPD can't continue to trade on its history while appeasing the neoliberals in its ranks.

Under a political squeeze from the Greens and the Left, the SPD has adopted some politices that we would be unlikely to see from New Zealand Labour at the moment, such as a small tax rise for high income earners and free tertiary education for a person's first degree. We are talking about continential Europe here - not the wannabe Anglo American wild west.

A coalition with the Left Party may have the effect of revitalising the SPD, in a similar way to the way the involvement of the New Zealand Alliance in the government in 1999-2002 gave the appearance of rehabilitating the Labour party from its rabid neoliberal 1980s. A SPD-Left coalition would also serve to rehabitate the Left from its proported past - perhaps thats just what the SPD are afraid of.

So next month I am hoping that Germany will once again give the combined forces of the The Left, The SPD and the Greens a majority of support. Lets hope the SPD learn the lesson from 2005 and remember whose side they are meant to be on.

It is possible left leaning German voters used these state elections to send a message to the SPD - the question is - are they listening?

Unfortunately the current polls seem to indicate a CDU/FDP government is more likely, with the FDP also doing well in Sunday's state polls. One poll showed the Left party on an all time high of 15%, 5% behind the SPD, with the Greens on 10%. The CDU/CSU/FDP together gained 49% support.

The legacy of neo-liberalism on family life - some thoughts from Blackball

I wrote most of the following post around three weeks ago, and was always intending to go back and finish it. I thought it might be an opportune time after seeing a related item on the news tonight.

A neonatal paediatrician is warning parents to do all they can to avoid putting their young children in daycare, saying it could permanently harm their developing brains. Dr Simon Rowley advocates for a parent to stay home with children in the early years if they can. He cites research looking at the hormone cortisol that found 80% of children in daycare become more stressed during the day, with toddlers showing the highest levels of stress.

Early Childhood Council chief executive Sarah Farquhar has taken issue with Dr Rowley .
"It's going back to the times of women being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. That's not healthy for children and it's not healthy for women . . . making parents feel guilty about their choices is not the way to go."
The Early Childhood Council also happens to be protecting its market - as an organisation representing private childcare centres. Kids are their source of cash.

Now its possible that Dr Rowley is running a socially conservative agenda here, particularly when he blames the social policies of Helen Clark, and many social conservatives demonise Clark. Yet to leave the issue there I think does the left a disservice, as it may leave empty political ground for socially conservative politicians if the left is not seen to be engaging with the issues in a deeper way.

What got me thinking about this was a very interesting discussion during the Blackball May Day celebrations earlier this year. We looked at the legacy of neo-liberalism in New Zealand, with a focus on its affect on family life.

I am greatly thankful to my fellow participants for helping me think about the issues in new ways.
--
The Blackball Working Class History Project now has a blog.

This year I attended the May Day celebrations in Blackball. It was an enjoyable and engaging weekend. As 2008 was the 100th anniversary of the famous Blackball miners strike, the numbers were smaller in 2009, but this allowed the issues to be covered in greater depth.

On the Saturday morning a forum was held on The Legacy of Neo-Liberalism. Many people prepared provocations for the forum in order to start the discussion. Rather than focus on economics and the undemocratic nature of how neo-liberalism was forced on the electorate, many people spoke of the legacy of neo-liberalism on families and family life.

It is great to see many of these contributions from the forum now appearing online. Paul Manuder has written a rundown of the weekend. Sandra and others highlighted the punative attitude of many government departments.

"I’ve got a friend in Greymouth who cares for her baby granddaughter, her ten year old son and her suicidal adult son. Can someone tell me why this woman, this mother, grandmother, carer of our most vulnerable, is being badgered by WINZ to get paying employment?"

I believe part of the explanation for this lies with the Social Security Amendment Act passed by the last Labour Government. This Act changed the whole purpose of the Act famously passed by Michael Joseph Savage in 1938. Rather than a focus on the welfare of the community, the focus came on getting a job - any job - as the only legitimate form of social assistance. I suggested Savage would be turning in his grave if he knew about these changes.

To return to the focus on the impact of neo-liberalism on family life, it was interesting that many saw the lack of family time due to financial pressure as a key problem. For example, a local teacher, Te Whaea Ireland saw many children with a desperate need for one on one contact with adults. Sandra summarised Te Whaea's comments like this.

"Parents love their children but the children are stressed. Families are stressed through everyone working long hours to survive economically. Children are arriving at school earlier, then there’s after school care, there’s no adult with the time to help with homework, no time for mooching- that stress-free space which generates self management, relatedness, creativity etc. The family is no longer functioning as a nurturing unit. She saw among her peer group, the stress in terms of a young couple trying to acquire a home and to have a family. She saw the traditional homemaker, once gender equality is accepted, as a valid and vital role in society."

It ought to be stressed that Te Whaea was not advocating a socially conservative agenda, as she assumes the acceptance of gender equity. Freedom and equity should aim to give people greater choices. The issue is that due to financial pressure parents no longer have the choice whether they wish to work OR be a homemaker.

Essentially, over the past 50 years employers have used the rightful work aspirations of women to halve 'real' family incomes - double incomes are now required to raise families in most cases. The Employment Contracts Act made the situation worse. I do not wish to go back to the 1950s here - what I am highlighting is how New Zealand employers and their right wing friends have used this societal change to their own economic advantage.

In terms of policy responses the following might be a useful starting point. The challenge of the left is not only to announce such policies but to demonstrate how they are relevant to the issues currently facing families. I am not sure the left has done so yet, or as effectively as it might.

• A new industrial relations framework which delivers a fairer share of company profits to families (the new Australian legislation might be worth looking at - particularly if we are serious about a real CER that is not limited to just what the business community wants)
• A minimum wage set at two thirds of the average wage (sign the Unite petition)
• Universal Basic Income (which would recognise the currently unpaid work of homemakers)
• A year or more of paid parental leave.
• More research on children's experiences on daycare - are there ways to make it less stressful and more confortable for the kids?
  

I very much welcome comments on this post, as I feel as if I am still working out the issues as I go.

--
During the Blackball forum I also suggested that the Clark Labour Government may be seen by future historians as playing a key role in embedding neo-liberalism as it deliberately avoided changing any of the neo-liberal legislation or the aggressive 'free trade' policies of the forth Labour Government. Despite the country voting left in 1999, the Reserve Bank Act, the Public Finance Act, the State Sector Act and a strict orthodoxy of 'balanced budgets' remained. Even after nine years. Indeed it is significant that in his valedictory speech the former Labour Finance Minister Michael Cullen spoke of his pride in pursuing free trade agreements and maintaining a socially progressive but fiscally conservative party.

I respected Cullen's intellect and his wit a great deal, but I always thought his views on the inevitability and the desirability of the WTO version of the global market were simply pollyanna. While he did renationalise the railways, this was only after costing the country millions by entering into a failed public-private partnership with Toll Holdings in 2004. In 2003 he had the opportunity buy the railways on the cheap and to tell Toll to noddy off, but did not do so.

Musing on Mt Albert poll

A poll out tonight shows Labour's David Shearer will win the Mt Albert by-election easily.

The TV One poll had Shearer coasting at 59%. National's disaster of a candidate Melissa Lee could only manage 21% support. She is in real danger of being relegated to third place in the contest, with the Greens Russel Norman at her heels on 15%.

TV One also polled on the party vote in the electorate (even though there is no such thing in a by-election). Jordan Carter finds good news here too - compared to the 2008 election result Labour have gained 6% additional party vote support in the electorate- this essentially puts numbers on the damage Melissa Lee has done to John Key's government.

Now that we can safely assume Labour are going to win. Labour and the left could make this an even sweeter victory if Russel Norman beats Melissa Lee - in this case I really hope some Labour supporters consider voting tactically for the Green.

With a 38% margin - could David shout Russel 8% and then share a drink over a really bad night for the National Government?

Of course the Labour leadership will be pushing for the highest vote possible for Labour. Most of the time this will also be in the interests of party members - but not always. In 2005 many Labour party activists were understandably dismayed when the senior leadership of their party, given the choice, formed a government with Winston Peters and Peter Dunne and excluded the Greens.

Labour and the Greens winning both first and second place in this by-election is in the interests of both parties. Not only will Labour retain the seat, a credible showing by the Greens will help build momentum and credibility for an alternative Government in 2011. The next election may be a while away yet, but Labour would be wise to give the Greens a few lilly pads forward, at little cost to itself, in order that the overall position of the centre-left is strengthened.
-
PS: Haven't been posting recently as I have been in Aussie over the past two weeks. Hope to make a couple of roo related posts later in the week.

Where is Labour's big idea?

In recent discussions with friends I am often left wondering when Labour will announce their 'big idea' for the election campaign. A big idea is seen as essential to their election chances.

Did Michael Cullen's tax cuts in April leave no money for big ideas? Perhaps, to give Michael some credit, this formed the reason for Cullen's reluctance to give in to tax cuts in the first place. Could tax cuts end up costing Labour the election?

Perhaps an historical example will help illustrate my point. Many have wondered why Winston Churchill was voted out of office so soon after leading Britain through World War Two. Part of the answer lies in the significant policy progress UK Labour made while part of the wartime coalition government. In the eyes of the British people Labour's ideas became more mainstream during this period, leading to the election of the progressive Attlee government in 1945.

Will Labour's tax cuts give encouragement for people to vote for National's irresponsible borrowing for bigger tax cuts? Me-too-ism could have a cost. I actually hope I am wrong here.

What if Labour had announced a plan to significantly improve public heath, education or housing affordability? Would this have quarantined the call for tax cuts to the struggling folk of Remuera? The new BMW would have had to wait.

In terms of big ideas - how about a housing affordability measure on the scale of the State Advances Scheme? While I do not entirely buy the argument that housing affordability measures will necessarily increase prices, perhaps the recent fall in house prices presents an opportune time to help young New Zealanders into their first home. Not only will the working class of South Auckland love such a policy, it could also ease the fears of middle class property owners who fear the paper value of their major asset will decline further.

The decline of the left in America

It was great to wake up this morning to hear Jim Flynn on National radio discussing his latest book. Listeners should be aware that Mr Flynn has a good sense of humour and sometimes delves in impish irony.

Emertius Professor of Political Studies at the University of Otago, Flynn new book is called "Where have all the liberals gone? Race, class and ideals in America". He summarised some of his findings in an article in the NZ Herald yesterday.

"Does American liberalism have a future? The question has a simple answer: not as long as liberals allow their opponents to define political reality. Right-wing dominance of American politics is easy to understand: popularise a hysterical image of a dangerous world; devote surplus government revenue to ensure "national security"; thus evade a debate about domestic priorities that you might lose; thus leave a vacuum to be filled by trivia such as prayer and gay marriage. "

"It is hard to tell whether American liberals have lost their voice because they lack courage or because they half believe in the same picture of reality. That they have forfeited their tradition of social reform is shown by the paucity of their hopes for an Obama victory."

Some of this analysis could also be applied to the Labour party here, particularly Goff's proposal to "ban" gangs" and Labour's draconian anti-terror legislation. In New Zealand the vacuum was filled with the so called 'debate' over the so called anti-smaking bill. If Labour lack the will and/or perhaps the money for big social reforms the centre-left may struggle to maintain the Treasury benches in November. I will return to this issue in my next post.

I was pleasantly surprised to hear US Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Biden say during the debate last night that he believes the 2008 American election is the most important since 1932. Prior to Franklin D Roosevelt's inauguration in March 1933, 32 out of the 48 states had closed their banks. I hope very much the Democrats are looking to resusitate Roosevelt - the current economic situation is making a new New Deal look like America's only hope right now.

Does National party strategy come from the CityRats?

Chris Trotter poses an interesting question. Did the success of the Citizens and Ratepayers Campaign in the last Auckland local body elections provide a 'dry run' for the general election campaign of National led by John Key? Is the same strategy at work?

"Like Banksie, Key is promising that he and his followers have changed. That they’re no longer the flinty-faced mob they used to be under Don Brash. Oh dear me no, they have turned over a new leaf, and become kinder, gentler tories: National-Lite. Also, like Banksie and his C&R strategists, the Nats are relying on the voters’ rapidly waning affection for the incumbent left-wing adminstration to carry them into power without having to first undergo too much in the way of intense media scrutiny.

Could this explain the Opposition’s extreme reluctance to talk about too much policy detail? In case somebody ends up disagreeing - i.e. attracting attention and making news? Is Key hoping to take down Helen Clark’s government in the same way that Banksie took down Dick Hubbard’s - by default?"

Trotter believes the Left opened the way for the CityRats to win in an environment where there was little public scrutiny of their ideas or what they stood for. I largely agree with Trotter's analysis here. I would also note that a compliant media was also a factor.

This suggests a Labour party general election campaign based around 'keeping National out' is less likely to succeed than a campaign based on big ideas (like interest free student loans). Announcing progressive policy is more likely to force the Nats to talk about policy in a way they wish to avoid. Act's Roger Douglas may have this effect too. Labour would not need to run the negative message, as National and Act will scare the horses all by themselves, just like Maurice Williamson did with his $50 a week estimate of road tolls.

I posted the following as a comment in response to Chris' post - I thought I might as well note it here too.

Another related issue is the failure of the centre-left/left to come up with a credible electable candidate for the Auckland Mayoralty for as long as I can remember. While Hubbard won in 2004, he ran a dreadful campaign in 2007. Hubbard’s politics are centrist at best - I am sure many voted for him because he was on the left of Banks, which is not saying much. In 2001 there was the fracas created by the Labour wing of City Vision endorsing a failed National party cabinet minister who also ran a dreadful campaign, and lost badly.

Could we please have a centre-left candidate at the next mayoral elections who people of the left actually want to vote for? A candidate who can generate some enthusiasm around local body issues and encourages a greater turnout?

Green party co-leadership on Agenda

Yesterday morning I watched the Agenda special on the Green party co-leadership election.

Agenda presenter Lisa Owen clearly had not hosted many panel debates before - she looked nervous and unsure of herself at times. The clearest example of this was right at the end, when she called for final closing statements from all the candidates, and then only gave Mike Ward a go before she ended the programme!

The candidates Nandor Tanczos, Russel Norman, Dave Clendon and Mike Ward faced questions from the presenter, an audience of Green party members and phone-in questions from members of the public.

Perhaps the format was wrong, but all four candidates seemed to emphaise what they had in common, rather than the qualities and inclinations they would bring as co-leader. So many of the candidates answers came across as simple platitudes or restatements of Green party policy.

The phone-in callers appeared to be a bunch of single issue nutters, unlikely ever to support the Greens, who seemed to use the program's to land some cheap political points against the party. First we heard from Mike the Climate Change denier, and then another guy who attempted to make tenuous link between getting compensation for Agent Orange/Nuclear Test Veterans and a free trade agreement with the US. I though Nandor answered the latter question well, sympathising with the plight of the veterans and making a comparison of their plight with sawmill workers suffering 'hugely' from dioxin poisoning. Instead of the phone in circus, it would have been better to have questions from a panel of sympathetic commentators, like Chris Trotter and Keith Rankin.

Given that I have heard Russel Norman would like to place more of an emphasis on social justice I was a little disappointed he did not differentiate himself a great deal on this point, other than give a ringing endorsement of the work of Sue Bradford. Generally lefties want to hear more than just simple statements that social justice and ecological wisdom are innately 'connected' - they want proof. Despite the tax free band present Green party tax policy - tax shifting (which Norman endorses) - would still have a regressive effect unless tax rates were made way more progressive. It would be good to see Russel to follow Sue's lead and promote a Universal Basic Income alongside a more progressive tax policy to pay for it. If Norman wants to gain more support from the left it will not be enough for the policy to stand still.

This was the first I had seen of Dave Clendon, and he seemed to go ok. My spies tell me Dave has more 'centrist' inclinations, so I was pleased to see him rule out a coalition with National under his leadership. Perhaps Dave is the candidate for conservatively minded Greens who have concerns about Nandor's 'image'?

Mike Ward was awful. He seemed to have more to say than anyone else, but at times he came across as hectoring and dominated too many of the questions. How he managed to get into the top 10 of the Green Party List in 2002 I do not know. I heard a reliable rumour he was demoted below Catherine Delahunty - a non MP- in the first draft of the Greens 2005 list - and he should have stayed there. I have noticed that some MPs after they leave Parliament never get over the loss of status - lets face it they get three years of being treated like a VIP. I even came up with a name for this affliction. Mike Ward standing for the co-leadership appears to me to be a bad case of 'MP-a-lit-us'.

If I was forced to name a 'winner' of the debate I would call it for Nandor. He answered questions with an easy and relaxed manner and got some good points in. But so he should, given that he has had many more opportunities to be in front of the cameras than the other candidates. That said, I would expect some media training would be on the cards for whoever won the co-leadership.

This is not to say I endorse Nandor's strategy of moving the Greens towards the centre, and dissociating the Greens away from being a 'left-wing' party. Greens who say such things appear to be wanting to separate the ecological and the economic, at the same time they say they are 'interconnected'. They can't have it both ways. In my experience many of these types do think of social justice considerations, but think of them in a secondary fashion. If the Greens are to be 'less left wing' this means some of their policies will be closer to those of National or Labour - they risk the big parties only allowing the Greens to be a mere environmental clip on.

If the Greens avoid identifying free market capitalism as the key driver in environmental destruction (which it is), the level of analysis becomes shallow indeed. As a friend of mine put it "a good left critical analysis of our public health system is more than simply an inquiry into obesity and banning McDonald's happy meals."

I do find it a bit of an irony that Nandor appears to be targeting some of the conservative 'middle class' who are unlikely to support him on account of the dreds and the dope. I personally do not have a problem with either, but I suspect the petty middle class constituency who do not like to think of themselves as 'left wing' do. Lets face it, we are talking about image in both cases.

I noticed Nandor had his hair tied up for the Agenda debate!

While some on the left are predicting Russel Norman will win the co-leadership, I am not so sure. As the postal vote will be conducted under an STV system, it is likely Nandor will pick up more of the second and third preferences of those who cast their first vote for Ward or Clendon.

New Bruce Jesson collection

I am really pleased to hear a new collection of the work of Bruce Jesson is soon to hit the shelves.

"To Build a Nation" includes a wide range of the late Jesson's writing, from 1975 onwards, including many of his Metro columns and his later reflections in "The republican" and "NZ Political Review". Such a collection is long overdue IMHO.

Jesson was a highly economically literate writer of the left, and used his knowledge of economic history to critique the 'free market fundamentalism' that has plagued his country since 1984. In a touch of irony Bruce warned in 1975 'what a disaster' it would be if the free market fundamentalists ever gained control in New Zealand.

While the current Labour-led government say they are more sympathetic to economic development and other government intervention in the market, I strongly suspect Bruce would call their bluff and correctly criticise Labour for fueling the fundamentalism, while claiming to do otherwise.

If you continue to listen to the audio stream of Linda Clark interviewing Tim Howard about the Philippines, sit through a track of Fat Freddy's Drop, for the next item Linda goes on to review Jesson's "To Build a Nation" with John McCrystal. Although Mr McCrystal gives Bruce a sympathetic review, I got the impression John did not know a great deal about Jesson apart from his reading of the book. I wish the xtra.co.nz website would allow you to fast forward through an audio feed!

The Bruce Jesson Foundation is hosting an official launch of the book tomorrow at 6pm, in a very appropriate venue - the debating chamber of the Auckland Regional Council.

Categories: New Zealand, Politics, Economics, Left Wing, Books